|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Dec 2, 2017 8:14:23 GMT -5
It's only easy if you buy it from him and he's well patented up to protect that (just like Bob Stuart and his MQA). Since he figured out the non-easy, then - he deserved to have a well-protected technology. That's why we have a patent system. Inventors are given protection from others using their inventions without their permission in exchange for teaching the world how the invention works. People can then build off that invention with yet more things...and eventually be able to make/sell/use those improvements also. Of course, he can license out the technology is he wants and make a bit more $ off it... Mark No argument there, but the price for that technology is high and although it performs well, it does not necessarily out perform more standard amplifier technology well implimented! |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,092
|
Post by klinemj on Dec 2, 2017 8:22:26 GMT -5
Since he figured out the non-easy, then - he deserved to have a well-protected technology. That's why we have a patent system. Inventors are given protection from others using their inventions without their permission in exchange for teaching the world how the invention works. People can then build off that invention with yet more things...and eventually be able to make/sell/use those improvements also. Of course, he can license out the technology is he wants and make a bit more $ off it... Mark No argument there, but the price for that technology is high and although it performs well, it does not necessarily out perform more standard amplifier technology well implimented! Well, I built my Hypex for $1500 and it outperforms what it replaced. Sure, you can get the pre-built ones for a boutique price, but the fact that Hypex makes available something using the same technology for far less makes it very available and fair priced. And, tying the back to the thread topic...the Hypex has a switching power supply, as does the XPA gen 3. So, it's very possible to having a switching power supply that sounds good. Based on what I heard of the Gen 3's at Emofest, I'd have no concern buying one if I were in the market for a new amp. And, they'd be high on my list to try. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Dec 2, 2017 8:45:16 GMT -5
No argument there, but the price for that technology is high and although it performs well, it does not necessarily out perform more standard amplifier technology well implimented! Well, I built my Hypex for $1500 and it outperforms what it replaced. Sure, you can get the pre-built ones for a boutique price, but the fact that Hypex makes available something using the same technology for far less makes it very available and fair priced. And, tying the back to the thread topic...the Hypex has a switching power supply, as does the XPA gen 3. So, it's very possible to having a switching power supply that sounds good. Based on what I heard of the Gen 3's at Emofest, I'd have no concern buying one if I were in the market for a new amp. And, they'd be high on my list to try. Mark I would rather not load up on power pulse based equipment for obvious reasons - they radiate high frequency energy. They may perform well, but may impact performance of other nearby electronics. Another factor is reliability and endurance which is not yet established with Hypex. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Dec 2, 2017 13:38:57 GMT -5
My experience in developing unique software and hardware for industrial purposes is that the solution must be delivered on time and in working condition. I had a 0% failure rate in 42 years of thousands of motor/controller/software projects. A 50% failure rate would put the company out of business. I'm not saying what one goes to the market with is 50% failure...what I am saying is that in developing something new - the attempts to make it work while in development are high and there are a lot of failures there. Once in market - yes...the failure rate must be low. And that said, in developing new code with a known language of coding or new hardware within a known hardware platform...it shouldn't take a lot of tries to get those right. Maybe there might be 1 or 2 "oops" - missed a logic loop" or something like that. Mark Tesla is up against the software problem now and in only slightly charted territory. Rumor has it that the battery management part of his new Tesla3 was botched by an outside vender. This has really delay shipments of the new model. Some code is VERY complex. The safety part of the code for running a Nuclear Power Plant is nearly UnTestable unless it 'happens'. We might never know what happened @ *bleep*ushima but I'm betting on a combination of Human error and computer code issues which went undiscovered, even by the thorough Japanese. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,092
|
Post by klinemj on Dec 2, 2017 15:22:39 GMT -5
Well, I built my Hypex for $1500 and it outperforms what it replaced. Sure, you can get the pre-built ones for a boutique price, but the fact that Hypex makes available something using the same technology for far less makes it very available and fair priced. And, tying the back to the thread topic...the Hypex has a switching power supply, as does the XPA gen 3. So, it's very possible to having a switching power supply that sounds good. Based on what I heard of the Gen 3's at Emofest, I'd have no concern buying one if I were in the market for a new amp. And, they'd be high on my list to try. Mark I would rather not load up on power pulse based equipment for obvious reasons - they radiate high frequency energy. They may perform well, but may impact performance of other nearby electronics. Another factor is reliability and endurance which is not yet established with Hypex. One of mine is near my TT, which uses a low output MC cart. If it the radiated energy was an issue, I should hear it via that. I don't. I think there are a lot of theoretical concerns people raise that have no real-world bearing. As to reliability...I'm not concerned at all. Mine and many others I know have survived the key "manufacturer's defect" period and are well into the "wearout" period with no issues. If things are going to fail, other than via normal life of parts - they fail quickly. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Dec 4, 2017 14:17:54 GMT -5
Yep. It's called 'infant mortality' and a good reason to SKIP the offer of 'extended warranty'.
Such warranties are almost pure profit and sometimes you get a 'claim denied' for some obtuse reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Dec 4, 2017 15:14:41 GMT -5
I've had plenty of computer switching supplies fail - well past the initial phase. Then again, these types of supplies probably get stressed more than most.
|
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Dec 4, 2017 15:25:37 GMT -5
I used to as well, and then I started blowing them out with compressed air to get rid of all the accumulated dust keeping it from dissipating it's heat. Haven't had one go bad (have 5 PC's in the house) in over 8 years now. Still using one from 1998 or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Dec 4, 2017 15:35:39 GMT -5
Yep. It's called 'infant mortality' and a good reason to SKIP the offer of 'extended warranty'. Such warranties are almost pure profit and sometimes you get a 'claim denied' for some obtuse reason. Infant mortality is due to statistically marginal components that may have been used in a given sample. Extended warranty is more likely to be useful for long term failures due to marginal design. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 4, 2017 16:40:32 GMT -5
You're sort of missing the point. The special thing about 1/3 power is simply that Class A/B amps run hottest at 1/3 power. Therefore, if you want to test an amp TO SEE IF IT OVERHEATS, then the most stressful way to do that is to run it for some time at 1/3 power. It has nothing to do with audio performance at all (unless you suspect that the amp will perform badly when it's very warm - which usually is NOT the case). In the early days of audio, many manufacturers would use a wide variety of misleading power measurement standards - like "instantaneous peak-to-peak power" (IPP). These measurements were misleading because they produced VERY different results than the currently accepted "watts RMS per channel". (A stereo amplifier legitimately rated at 20 watts/channel might be measured at "500 watts IPP".) As a result of this, the Federal Trade Commission set forth a rule stating how "home audio amplifiers" must be measured (at least if the measurements were included in any advertising claims). In the early days, amp manufacturers were also notorious for trying to save money and weight by not using enough heat sinks. Because of this, certain amplifier models became known for quite literally burning up if you ran them too hard for too long. And, because of that, the FTC included the requirement for "preconditioning" in the official test conditions. The purpose of the 1/3 power preconditioning was simply to see if the amp would burn up if run for too long under "worst case thermal conditions". The original version of the test required the amp to run steadily for one hour at 1/3 power before being tested.... and any sort of shutdown was considered to be a fail. The test was later amended such that, if the amplifier had a thermal shutdown mechanism, it was allowed to cycle on and off as many times as it liked..... as long as it could accumulate one hour of total run time at 1/3 power without actually destroying itself. I believe the specification was again later amended to reduce the preconditioning power to a less stressful lower percentage of the total power. The test, as a legal testing standard, was only ever specified for TWO CHANNEL HOME AUDIO AMPLIFIERS... and was never specified to apply to "car audio or multi-channel home theater equipment". (And, again, the sole purpose is to confirm that the amplifier has either enough heat sinks, or effective enough thermal protection, to avoid damage if run under worst case thermal conditions.) If you want to be really bored to tears, Google "1972 FTC Audio Power Amplifier regulation"......... you'll find it in there. The 1/3 power test is standard in the amp testing world. If your amp doesn’t pass, then if you don’t want to fix it, just deny the validity of the test. Next, Bruno Putzey- this guy developed his class D amp by the Edison method, over many years which is a dogged try, try, and then try again approach. His designs only succeed if every detail of circuit board design is just so. Any relocation or spacing change of any given component can upset the apple cart. Locating wiring to his boards must be just so, and tha power supplies must be carefully located. This is a high risk and high cost way to design and that is why his and other class D amps are sold in pre- manufactured modules. This is not likely to be a viable path for Emotiva. Okay, if 1/3 power is the standard then why didn't they test that 500 watt monoblock Dan spoke of at 166 watts instead of 100 watts or 20% of rated power? I guess we'll never know how it would have fared at 33%. That 13% increase in power output relates to something like 30% more voltage output at the speaker terminals. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 4, 2017 16:47:24 GMT -5
The other thing to remember is that we are increasingly surrounded by sources of high-frequency noise...... so attempting to avoid it is a losing battle anyway. Virtually every electric or electronic device in your home has either a radio transmitter, a computer, or a brush motor in it these days..... all of which generate high frequency noise. For example, both compact fluorescent and LED bulbs have switching power supplies in them..... And cell phones, cordless phones, and WiFi routers all have actual radio transmitters in them..... (So, if you have any equipment whose performance suffers significantly from the presence of high-frequency noise, it's pretty well doomed anyway.) The reality is that there are standards for how much noise any of these devices is allowed to radiate - and the power supply in our XPA Gen3 amps complies with the same regulations as all the rest of that stuff. I would rather not load up on power pulse based equipment for obvious reasons - they radiate high frequency energy. They may perform well, but may impact performance of other nearby electronics. Another factor is reliability and endurance which is not yet established with Hypex. One of mine is near my TT, which uses a low output MC cart. If it the radiated energy was an issue, I should hear it via that. I don't. I think there are a lot of theoretical concerns people raise that have no real-world bearing. As to reliability...I'm not concerned at all. Mine and many others I know have survived the key "manufacturer's defect" period and are well into the "wearout" period with no issues. If things are going to fail, other than via normal life of parts - they fail quickly. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Dec 4, 2017 16:48:15 GMT -5
You're sort of missing the point. The special thing about 1/3 power is simply that Class A/B amps run hottest at 1/3 power. Therefore, if you want to test an amp TO SEE IF IT OVERHEATS, then the most stressful way to do that is to run it for some time at 1/3 power. It has nothing to do with audio performance at all (unless you suspect that the amp will perform badly when it's very warm - which usually is NOT the case). In the early days of audio, many manufacturers would use a wide variety of misleading power measurement standards - like "instantaneous peak-to-peak power" (IPP). These measurements were misleading because they produced VERY different results than the currently accepted "watts RMS per channel". (A stereo amplifier legitimately rated at 20 watts/channel might be measured at "500 watts IPP".) As a result of this, the Federal Trade Commission set forth a rule stating how "home audio amplifiers" must be measured (at least if the measurements were included in any advertising claims). In the early days, amp manufacturers were also notorious for trying to save money and weight by not using enough heat sinks. Because of this, certain amplifier models became known for quite literally burning up if you ran them too hard for too long. And, because of that, the FTC included the requirement for "preconditioning" in the official test conditions. The purpose of the 1/3 power preconditioning was simply to see if the amp would burn up if run for too long under "worst case thermal conditions". The original version of the test required the amp to run steadily for one hour at 1/3 power before being tested.... and any sort of shutdown was considered to be a fail. The test was later amended such that, if the amplifier had a thermal shutdown mechanism, it was allowed to cycle on and off as many times as it liked..... as long as it could accumulate one hour of total run time at 1/3 power without actually destroying itself. I believe the specification was again later amended to reduce the preconditioning power to a less stressful lower percentage of the total power. The test, as a legal testing standard, was only ever specified for TWO CHANNEL HOME AUDIO AMPLIFIERS... and was never specified to apply to "car audio or multi-channel home theater equipment". (And, again, the sole purpose is to confirm that the amplifier has either enough heat sinks, or effective enough thermal protection, to avoid damage if run under worst case thermal conditions.) If you want to be really bored to tears, Google "1972 FTC Audio Power Amplifier regulation"......... you'll find it in there. Okay, if 1/3 power is the standard then why didn't they test that 500 watt monoblock Dan spoke of at 166 watts instead of 100 watts or 20% of rated power? I guess we'll never know how it would have fared at 33%. That 13% increase in power output relates to something like 30% more voltage output at the speaker terminals. So why test a 500 watt monoblock at 20% and an Emotiva Gen 3 at 33%? |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Dec 4, 2017 17:04:50 GMT -5
The other thing to remember is that we are increasingly surrounded by sources of high-frequency noise...... so attempting to avoid it is a losing battle anyway. Virtually every electric or electronic device in your home has either a radio transmitter, a computer, or a brush motor in it these days..... all of which generate high frequency noise. For example, both compact fluorescent and LED bulbs have switching power supplies in them..... And cell phones, cordless phones, and WiFi routers all have actual radio transmitters in them..... (So, if you have any equipment whose performance suffers significantly from the presence of high-frequency noise, it's pretty well doomed anyway.) The reality is that there are standards for how much noise any of these devices is allowed to radiate - and the power supply in our XPA Gen3 amps complies with the same regulations as all the rest of that stuff. One of mine is near my TT, which uses a low output MC cart. If it the radiated energy was an issue, I should hear it via that. I don't. I think there are a lot of theoretical concerns people raise that have no real-world bearing. As to reliability...I'm not concerned at all. Mine and many others I know have survived the key "manufacturer's defect" period and are well into the "wearout" period with no issues. If things are going to fail, other than via normal life of parts - they fail quickly. Mark Those standards are human safety restrictions on radiation, not related to equipment susceptibility. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Dec 4, 2017 18:40:28 GMT -5
Yep. It's called 'infant mortality' and a good reason to SKIP the offer of 'extended warranty'. Such warranties are almost pure profit and sometimes you get a 'claim denied' for some obtuse reason. Infant mortality is due to statistically marginal components that may have been used in a given sample. Extended warranty is more likely to be useful for long term failures due to marginal design. Makes good sense. What I observed when I was in manufacturing is that even Very Expensive machines (1,000,000$+) would fail during the first couple months, to maybe 6 months. After that? Normal maintenance kept 'em running for a long time between failures. When purchasing a bunch of such machines, like 6 Applied Materials Implanters, we would Also get 'factory on-site service' for as long as 1 year. The factory guy would fix AND train so when he left, we'd be well equipped to keep 'em running. www.towercottage.com/images/9500%20WH%20Control%20Sm.JPGThis is a view of the 'wheel' which holds 25 wafers of 6" diameter. An implanter has Dozens of power supplies, toxic gasses, a High Vacuum system, High Voltage up to 160Kev (that's a LOT) and uses house nitrogen, compressed air, water, Dionized Water and other. Not to mention the COMPUTER which integrates ALL systems and provides for various safety features. And records EVERY event in the system. The event logs are gigantic and must be parsed for what you are looking for. Maybe 8 or 10 categories of message. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,092
|
Post by klinemj on Dec 4, 2017 19:06:28 GMT -5
The other thing to remember is that we are increasingly surrounded by sources of high-frequency noise...... so attempting to avoid it is a losing battle anyway. Virtually every electric or electronic device in your home has either a radio transmitter, a computer, or a brush motor in it these days..... all of which generate high frequency noise. For example, both compact fluorescent and LED bulbs have switching power supplies in them..... And cell phones, cordless phones, and WiFi routers all have actual radio transmitters in them..... (So, if you have any equipment whose performance suffers significantly from the presence of high-frequency noise, it's pretty well doomed anyway.) The reality is that there are standards for how much noise any of these devices is allowed to radiate - and the power supply in our XPA Gen3 amps complies with the same regulations as all the rest of that stuff. Those standards are human safety restrictions on radiation, not related to equipment susceptibility. So...when I grow a 2nd head, I'll let you know. Meanwhile, I hope you are not using or even near a cell phone or 90% of other modern devices if human safety is your concern. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Dec 4, 2017 20:43:53 GMT -5
I believe the 1/3 power test IS still valid. Many people publish photos of 'the system'. In many of these photos you see a STACK of amps and other stuff. Sometimes the stack is in a space with restricted airflow. 2 Strikes. You can trap enough heat in a stacked situation to easily 'simulate' the 1/3 power test. Heat Kills equipment, for certain. I could imagine a case where a G2 amp running in 'A' under such conditions would get pretty darn warm. Some amps even sound better after having been 'on' for anywhere from 30 minutes to an Hour+. Transistors can change electrically as they warm. Right at the upper temp limit, they go Wonky THAN fail. One famous early SS amp, it was either the Phase Linear 400 or the Phase Linear 700 had a transistor in a critical location which changed enough as the amp warmed to improve the sound. From DIYAudio www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/186544-phase-linear-400-bias-question.html |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Dec 4, 2017 21:44:09 GMT -5
Those standards are human safety restrictions on radiation, not related to equipment susceptibility. So...when I grow a 2nd head, I'll let you know. Meanwhile, I hope you are not using or even near a cell phone or 90% of other modern devices if human safety is your concern. Mark I am not concerned specifically because protective standards DO exist. But as an engineer and audiophile there are certain noise practices I can take to make my entertainment experiences to be less likely to be deteriorated by RFI and EMI between my equipment and especially in my low level signal wiring. One good practice to avoid noise is to eliminate or isolate types of circuitry known to ooze RF noise. Switching PS and class D are examples of things I try to avoid. And if I do obtain some of these, I try my best to locate them as wisely as possible and if I built a Class D unit as you did, I would never enclose them in anything but a magnetic / Faraday cage of some sort; to do otherwise would be to be dismissive of my engineering education. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Dec 5, 2017 14:00:58 GMT -5
MGBPUFF,
Not to forget that the 'bad stuff' propogates 2 major ways.
Thru the air, since stuff that makes tha 'hash' can act as low-powered radio transmitters
Thru the Wiring. I'd say offhand that common grounds would be a culprit here.
As a crude but repeatable check? I use my highly regarded SONY ICF-2010 shortwave receiver. When checking around, I found my Plasma TV to radiate from about 50khz (way below broadast AM band) to 30Mhz, the limits of the radio.
This was a wild amount of interference and messed up the radio to maybe 25' or30'.
Some other gear seems to emanate RF, too, but NOTHING like from the Plasma. Once replaced with an OLED? No More RF hash.
My best listening was always late at night when the power lines are most 'quiet' and the TV was OFF. Stereo is within feet of the TV installation.
Best shortwave listening EVER? We had a Major Power Fail here in SoCal and the power was off at my house for 12 hours. The extent of the outage was basically from the Mexican Border to Santa Barbara and inland. I think that was 2011.
I could hear a broadcast band stationion every 10khz across teh entire band. Clear channel stuff (usually only 3 call letters, like WGN or KFI or KOA) could be heard better than ever. International ShortWave from ANYWHERE was easily picked up.
I don't know that living in a Faraday Cage would help, as long as you get power from 'outside'.
|
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Dec 5, 2017 14:34:46 GMT -5
The Gen 3 has been out more than long enough that with all the tightly held angst against SMPS's, people would have posted problems with it early and often on here. The fact that there hasn't been a single post related to that pretty much dispels that urban myth. Was there something wrong with the Stereophile unit? Sure, and it may be propagated in the G3 line (the "pre production unit" that can't seem to be located sounds pretty sketchy). Howevever, whatever that problem may be it's in the amp circuitry, not in the power supply.
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 5, 2017 16:15:31 GMT -5
So if people are really worried about Radio Interference, why not simply measure it with an RF Meter? Surely someone here has both an XPA Gen3 and an EMF Meter ... Also, properly grounded/shielded cases/cables both for potential emission sources as well and EMF sensitive equipment goes a long ways towards ameliorating this. Finally, Federal Law governs the amount of EMF that a piece of equipment may radiate for exactly these reasons. I know that we have to get all of our equipment run through certification tests.
Casey
|
|
